The emergence of secret societies of the Decembrists is brief. Secret societies of the Decembrists and their programs

Russian Academy of National Economy and Public Administration under the President of the Russian Federation

Department of Customs Affairs and Risk Management

Report

in the discipline: "National History"

on the topic: “Secret societies 1816-1825.”

Completed:

1st year student, gr. 1407

Gorbachev Roman Dmitrievich

Teacher:

Lushin A.I.

St. Petersburg, 2015

In 1816, the first Decembrist society arose in St. Petersburg, called the “Union of Salvation.” Its founders were Alexander Nikolaevich Muravyov, Sergey Petrovich Trubetskoy, Nikita Mikhailovich Muravyov, Matvey Ivanovich and Sergey Ivanovich Muravyov-Apostles, Ivan Dmitrievich Yakushkin, and a little later they were joined by Pavel Ivanovich Pestel. The "Union of Salvation", or "Society of True and Faithful Sons of the Fatherland", numbered up to 30 members, among whom were only officers of the Guards regiments and the General Staff. According to the “Statute” (charter), members of the society were divided into “boyars”, “husbands” and “brothers” (the influence of Freemasonry), who swore an oath on the cross and the Gospel upon entry.

The “Union of Salvation” from the very beginning identified the main goals of the movement - the abolition of serfdom and the introduction of a constitution, but for a long time doubted the methods of achieving these goals. At first, the Decembrists pinned their hopes on the liberal policies of Alexander I, preparing to become faithful assistants to the reformer monarch. As a last resort, they decided not to swear allegiance to the new monarch during the interregnum until he satisfied their demands. However, in 1817 they heard rumors that Alexander I was preparing to give independence to Poland by annexing some territories of Ukraine and Belarus. It was then that the Decembrists first thought about regicide (projects for its implementation were proposed by I.D. Yakushkin and M.S. Lunin). Technically, the murder of the monarch did not present much difficulty for the guards officers, but they understood that for the coup to succeed they needed broad public support, which the Decembrists did not have. The need for action and the limited methods of achieving goals forced the noble revolutionaries to seek advice from French educators. One of the fundamental ideas of Enlightenment philosophy was the idea that the world is ruled by opinion. In other words, the way of government and the structure of life in a particular state depend on the public opinion that prevails in it. Thus, the task for the Decembrists changed radically: instead of preparing a revolutionary coup, they had to engage in the education of appropriate public opinion. Since the “Union of Salvation” was completely unsuitable for solving this problem, in January 1818 the “Union of Welfare” was created in Moscow instead. To expand the number of members of the organization, the explicit and secret goals of the new society were written down in its charter (the “Green Book”). Explicit purpose called the spread of education and the occupation of civil positions by members of the "Union". The secret goal remained the same - “the introduction of a constitution” and “the abolition of slavery.” Not everyone who joined the society was introduced to the second part of the charter. The Decembrists believed that it would take about 20 years to form a civilized public opinion. To do this, they provided for the creation of “Union” councils in most provincial cities of Russia, as well as legal and semi-legal societies: educational, literary, and charitable. In 1818-19 A mass retirement of officers began - members of the Union of Welfare, who were in a hurry to occupy various civilian positions for a wider coverage of society with humane ideas. The Decembrists created Lancastrian mutual education schools, saved the population of the starving Smolensk province, bought out talented serfs, and campaigned in salons against “slavery and despotism.” However, during the 2 years of the existence of the new organization, the Decembrists managed to open only 5-6 of its administrations. The results of fostering a humane public opinion, if there were any, remained little noticeable. Reactionary, feudal overtones were becoming more and more apparent in Russia's internal politics. Moreover, in 1820, a timely hint from history came to the aid of the noble revolutionaries in the form of military revolutions in Spain and Italy, as well as indignation in the Semenovsky Guards Regiment. These events showed them that with a certain organization of affairs, a successful revolution was possible using only the army (which was especially close to them, as officers). In other words, life again demanded organizational restructuring from the Decembrists. In January 1820, a meeting of the Root Council, the governing body of the Union of Welfare, took place in St. Petersburg. It was decided to fight for the introduction of a republican system in Russia. In addition, Pestel and Nikita Muravyov were instructed to develop program documents for the secret society. A year later, a congress of representatives of the administrations (branches) of the “Union” was held in Moscow, at which it was decided to dissolve it. The moderate wing thereby hoped to cut off Pestel and his radical like-minded people from the movement. However, convinced revolutionaries had their own views on the future of the secret society. In the spring and summer of 1821, the construction of the Southern and Northern Decembrist societies began in Ukraine and St. Petersburg - more conspiratorial than the Union of Welfare, and developing more radical tactics of action. Thinking over plans for a military revolution, the conspirators hoped that it would be bloodless and quick. In addition, this tactic made it possible to do without the help of the masses, whom the Decembrists considered, on the one hand, a counter-revolutionary force due to the traditional naive monarchism of the peasants, and on the other, an uncontrollable force capable of rebellion, anarchy, blind destruction, but not creation. Thus, the well-known thesis that the revolutionaries were “terribly far from the people” is explained both by their social caution and by the political underdevelopment of the Russian peasantry. In 1821-23 The final organizational formation of the Northern and Southern societies takes place. Southern Society was governed by the Root Duma (Directory), in which, in addition to P.I. Pestel and Andrei Petrovich Yushnevsky, N.M. was also elected. Muravyov. The “southerners” understood that the fate of the revolution would be decided in the capital, so they elected “northerner” Muravyov to the Directory. In fact, the Southern society was dominated by Pestel, who advocated a strictly disciplined organization, the members of which unconditionally obey the leadership. Northern society was governed by the Duma, which included N.M. Muravyov, S.P. Trubetskoy and E.P. Obolensky. However, the “northerners” did not have such a clearly defined leader as Pestel. The Chisinau administration, which was separated into a separate organization, headed by M.F. Orlov and V.F. Raevsky in 1823 was destroyed by the government. Two programs were created in the Northern and Southern societies: “Russian Truth” by P. Pestel and “Constitution” by N. Muravyov - the pinnacle of political thought of Decembrism. Pestel believed that for the formation of a new Russia, a 10-year transition period was necessary, during which power was transferred to the Supreme Revolutionary Government. It was supposed to include A.P. Ermolova, M.M. Speransky, P.D. Kiseleva, N.S. Mordvinova and G.S. Batenkov - people known in society for their liberal views. It was they, possessing dictatorial powers, who were supposed to implement the provisions of “Russian Truth”. In his program, Pestel proposed abolishing serfdom and establishing a unitary state in Russia with a republican form of government. The highest legislative power in it belongs to the People's Council, and the executive power belongs to the State Duma, which consists of 5 people. Control functions were performed by the Supreme Council, and local power was exercised by district and volost assemblies and boards. The old classes in Russia were destroyed. Citizens of the new state were equal before the law, from the age of 20 they could vote and be elected, were endowed with property and political rights, with the exception of the right of unions and meetings with the aim of undermining the foundations of the state. Pestel introduced strict censorship and a powerful secret police in the country, and encouraged denunciation of politically unreliable citizens. The idea of ​​a 10-year dictatorship and the unpopular political measures proposed by him caused the Decembrists to distrust Pestel. They suspected that he wanted to become the Russian Napoleon, the dictator of the revolution. On the agrarian issue, Pestel tried to reconcile two mutually exclusive principles: the public property of the land and the right of private ownership of the arable land of those who cultivate and cultivate the land. To do this, he divided the entire fund of state, peasant, church and most of the landowners' lands into public and private components. Anyone could receive a plot of public land to support their family; this plot was inalienable, that is, it could not be sold, leased, mortgaged or donated. Thus, Pestel hoped to save the peasants from proletarianization, and Russia from the horrors of capitalism. Peasants who could cultivate more land than they were entitled to from the public fund could take a plot of private land intended for the “prosperity of the economy” and the development of private entrepreneurship. With this plot, its owner could do anything that could bring him additional profit. Muravyov's "Constitution" provided for the transformation of Russia into a federal state consisting of 14 powers and 2 regions (the powers were divided into counties, and counties into volosts). Supreme legislative body was to become a People's Assembly, consisting of the Supreme Duma and the House of Representatives, elected for 6 years. Only men who had reached the age of 21 and had real or movable property in the amount of 500 and 1000 rubles could enjoy the right to vote. respectively. For those wishing to be elected, the property qualification was even higher. The highest executive power belonged to the emperor, who was the supreme commander in chief and could, with the consent of the Supreme Duma, appoint ministers and judges. He was given a salary of up to 10 million rubles. per year so that he could maintain the yard. The monarch could reject the decisions of the People's Council, but if the council confirmed its decision for the third time, it automatically became law. The highest judicial body was to become the Supreme Court, which led the courts in the provinces and cities. The Constitution abolished serfdom and the previous class division of society. It proclaimed the equality of citizens and provided them with rights and freedoms without any restrictions. Solving the agrarian question, Muravyov endowed the former serfs with an estate and two acres of arable land, while maintaining landownership. Such a solution to the issue would force the peasants to become hired workers. former owners, since two acres of land could not provide a tolerable existence for a peasant family. The main difference between "Russian Truth" and the "Constitution" was not that the first made Russia a unitary republic, and the second - a federal constitutional monarchy. The point was not even that Pestel proposed the introduction of a 10-year transition period under the dictates of the Provisional Government, and Muravyov - the introduction of constitutional rule immediately after the coup. The main difference between the two approaches to the future of Russia was that Pestel and Muravyov counted on different driving forces future transformations, saw supporters of change in different layers population of the country. Pestel hoped for the support of the revolutionaries from the peasantry, who, in gratitude for the liberation from serfdom and the provision of land, would support the new government. Muravyov believed that real help The Decembrists can only be supported by the most educated, organized and independent layer of Russians - the middle nobility. The debate about which of the two options was more realistic continues in modern historiography. However, now most researchers agree that we are dealing with two utopias, since neither “Russian Truth” nor the “Constitution” fully took into account the socio-political situation in the empire. Russia in the first quarter of the 19th century. was not ready for such radical changes, and the plans of the Decembrists were most likely doomed to failure. In 1824, the Northern and Southern societies managed to agree on the timing of their joint performance. In the summer of 1826, at the base of the 2nd Army, stationed in Ukraine, it was planned to conduct large maneuvers with the participation of the emperor and his brothers. The uprising was planned to begin simultaneously in Ukraine and St. Petersburg. The royal family was to be exiled abroad, and the monarch himself was to be arrested until the issue of the form of government was resolved. The Decembrists gradually increased their strength: in 1825, the Society of United Slavs became part of the Southern Society; in St. Petersburg, the “Ryleevskaya branch” (a group of officers led by K.F. Ryleev) was active. However, life made its own adjustments to the plans of the noble revolutionaries - on November 19, 1825, Emperor Alexander I unexpectedly died in Taganrog.

Introduction.

Decembrism as historical phenomenon extremely versatile. It includes the ideology of noble revolutionaries, which had a significant influence on the public consciousness of advanced Russia in the first half of the 19th century.
The founders of the ideologically conscious and organized political struggle against autocracy and serfdom, the Decembrists forever went down in history.
Russia.

The historical and socio-political patterns of the Decembrists’ speech should in no case obscure the exclusivity, the originality of their movement as a whole, the stamp of chosenness that lay on their destinies. We must not forget that a small part of the progressive nobility protested against serfdom, feudal institutions and the arbitrariness of the autocracy. In general Russian nobility remained a serf-minded conservative class loyal to the throne.
The great merit of the Decembrists was that they were able to rise above their class interests, despise class privileges and consciously go to obvious death, in the name of high and noble ideals.

Russian culture, in fact in a broad sense This concept not only was the moral and spiritual basis for the Decembrists, but it was directly embodied in them and was elevated to a new level by them. The reputation of the most educated people of their time, assigned to the Decembrists, is not a legend or a late verdict of descendants. This reputation developed under them and was the natural beginning of the authority and influence that they enjoyed among their contemporaries. Many of the Decembrists studied at the Moscow and
St. Petersburg universities, Tsarskoye Selo Lyceum– the best educational institutions of that time, within whose walls the spirit of freethinking reigned; attended private courses from leading professors.

The names of Pushkin and
Griboyedov, among the Decembrists themselves there were many famous writers, poets, scientists, artists (K.F. Ryleev, A.I. Odoevsky, A.A. Bestuzhev-
Marlinsky, N.A. Bestuzhev, F.P. Tolstoy).

Formation of the revolutionary worldview of the Decembrists.

The Decembrists grew up and were formed in the conditions of Russian reality, their worldview reflected the ripening in Russian historical process the next, fundamental historical tasks are the abolition of serfdom and the abolition of autocracy. Belonging for the most part to the generation born at the turn of the 18th and 19th centuries, they observed Russian reality, complex and full of social contradictions, where class contrasts and the struggle between the old and the new were clearly expressed; Among them, the activities of the autocracy and complex international clashes at the beginning of the century were constantly discussed. Many of the future Decembrists began to think about the state of affairs in their native country while still at school.

Such advanced Russian educational institutions as Moscow University,
“Column Leader School” (future Academy of the General Staff) and
The Tsarskoye Selo Lyceum was the “nursery” of the Decembrists. Here, under the influence of the Russian revolutionary tradition, lectures by leading Russian scientists, as well as reflecting on the works of Western European political writers and philosophers (Voltaire, Rousseau, Montesquieu), who played a significant role in the preparation of the French Revolution, the inquisitive young thoughts of future Russian revolutionaries worked on Russian reality. Thoughts about the injustice of noble privileges, the dangers of serfdom, and the despotism of the tsar arose among many Decembrists even before the war of 1812.

The Patriotic War was perceived by the Decembrists as a people's war and forced them to reflect on the plight of the enslaved Russian people, who valiantly fought for their homeland. Returning to their homeland, covered in the glory of victory, the future Decembrists began to think even more deeply about the oppressed situation of their beloved homeland. Serfdom reigned everywhere, the arbitrariness of the autocracy was not limited in any way, the class court oppressed the common people, noble officials were engaged in bribery and embezzlement, the oppressed masses languished in the dark. Every day the reaction intensified, “Arakcheevism” raged. It was in this atmosphere that the first secret society of the Decembrists arose.

Comparison of the moral ideals of the Decembrists and Pushkin.

The St. Petersburg period of Pushkin’s life and work is distinguished by his desire for commonwealth, community, and fraternal unity. This reflected not only the inertia of the habit of the lyceum fraternal union, but a special feature of those years in Russian history in general. The happy end of the wars with Napoleon awakened in society a sense of its own strength, the right to social activity; it was in those post-war years that Zhukovsky’s “evenings” arose,
“Russian breakfasts” at Ryleev’s, where they thought together, argued, drank, discussed news, even reading books - an activity traditionally associated with solitude - becomes a form of friendly communication. It was at this time that the “Arzamas brotherhood” arose and actively lived, into which Pushkin the lyceum student was admitted in absentia, and in the summer of 1817, once in St. Petersburg, “Cricket” became its real participant.

By that time, in Arzamas, together with new members (N. Turgenev,
M. Orlov, N. Muravyov) appeared political ideas, which soon led to the collapse of the literary society. However, this did not prevent Pushkin from getting closer to N. Turgenev and M. Orlov - their image of preachers of freedom now turned out to be more attractive for Pushkin than the image of a “careless sloth” in the spirit of the heroes of Batyushkov or a “tired peasant” in the spirit of Zhukovsky.
Pushkin was attracted by the Decembrist type of person: uncompromisingness, harshness in speeches, categoricalness, strict moral demands and deep religiosity of Nikolai Turgenev, exceptional courage and philanthropy
Fyodor Glinka, Nikita’s high degree of patriotism and citizenship
Muravyov, Mikhail Lunin, Yakushkin and others. Carried away by the moral ideal of the Decembrists, Pushkin, nevertheless, had his own ethical ideas.

The moral ideal of the Decembrists was painted in the tones of heroic asceticism. The true citizen was presented as a stern hero who renounced happiness, fun, friendly feasts, and love for the sake of the common good; the citizen was opposed to the poet, the hero to the lover, freedom to happiness. However
Pushkin, unlike the Decembrists, preached different moral ideas.
The Enlightenment of the 18th century (a largely atheistic century, doubting everything) in the fight against Christian asceticism created the concept of freedom, not opposed to happiness, but coinciding with it. A truly free person is a man of passions, liberated internal forces, he is a lover, a poet, a citizen. Pushkin was deeply connected with the 18th century and adopted this understanding of freedom - it cannot be built on the self-restraint of the individual, on the contrary, it is the flourishing and fullness of the life of each individual that is the path to freedom. It is precisely this understanding of freedom that is reflected, for example, in the famous message “To Chaadaev” (“Love, hope, quiet glory...", 1818; I –
P.307), or in the madrigal by Princess E.I. Golitsyna (1817; I – P.281):

An inexperienced lover of foreign lands // And the ever-present accuser of one’s own,

I said: in my fatherland // Where is the true mind, where will we find genius?

Where is the citizen with a noble soul, // Sublime and ardently free?

Where is the woman - not with cold beauty, // But with fiery, captivating, living?

Where can I find a conversation that is relaxed, //Brilliant, cheerful, enlightened?

With whom can you not be cold, not empty? // I almost hated the Fatherland

But yesterday I saw Golitsyna // And I was reconciled with my fatherland.

In this poem, Pushkin actually formulated his moral ideal, he proclaims the intention to live in constant burning, “flame”, tension of passions (love, pranks, patriotism, etc.).

This focus on gambling fun and passion seemed to bring Pushkin closer to the “Arzamas” poets, but this was only an external similarity.
For the people of Arzamas and the poets of their circle, fun and laziness were just a literary pose: Zhukovsky, known for his self-denying poetic dreams, was more balanced and cheerful in everyday life; Batyushkov, tragically ill in life, became famous in poetry as a singer of love and pleasures; Baratynsky, a melancholic person in life, wrote the poem “Feasts,” which glorified carefree fun. Pushkin is the same in poetry and in life. Taking from the “Arzamas” the ideas of the joy of earthly life, and from the Decembrists the civil-patriotic pathos and the desire to move from words to actions, Pushkin created a new ethical ideal, devoid of extremes: happiness is the free development of the individual, to whom both high civic actions and religious ones are available feelings, and love passions, and just pranks, fun, laziness. Pushkin had an amazing ability to maintain the “golden mean”, possessing a perfect sense of proportion.

Pushkin was paving a new and his own path in life and poetry, but those around him could not understand, it seemed to them that he had lost his way, they wanted to direct him to the “true” path, and both the “Arzamas” and the Decembrists tried to do this. Tired of moralizing, from the fact that he was still considered a boy, Pushkin sometimes, to spite everyone, demonstrated the boyishness of his behavior. But the more pranks he indulged in and the more his reputation as an “immature” youth strengthened, the more Pushkin was not allowed to enter the circle of participants in the secret Decembrist societies. The annoying teachings of mentors, on the one hand, and the mistrust of friends, on the other, became the cause of feverish nervousness and tense mental state
Pushkin of those years; at any moment he expects insults and is always ready to respond with a challenge to a duel. In the summer of 1817, for an insignificant reason, he challenged the old man, Uncle S.I. Hannibal, to a duel, and challenged N. Turgenev, a classmate at the Lyceum
M. Korf, Major Denisevich and many others. others. Many duels could be “extinguished,” but not all - in the fall of 1819. Pushkin fought with Kuchelbecker (both shot in the air), a serious duel was probably with K.F. Ryleev (it has not been established exactly).

Secret societies of the Decembrists.

Union of Salvation or Society of True and Faithful Sons of the Fatherland.

The first secret society of Decembrists arose in 1816. It was called
Union of Salvation, and later, after the adoption of the Charter, - the Society of True and Faithful Sons of the Fatherland. The founder was a young colonel of the General Staff Alexander Muravyov, members were S. Trubetskoy, Sergey and Matvey Muravyov -
Apostles, Nikita Muravyov, M. Lunin, P.I. Pestel, I.I. Pushchin and others. These were noble military youth, bound by ties of close personal friendship and brought together on the basis of the advanced ideas of the time. There were 30 members in total.

This Society had a written “statute”, which combined both the program and the charter of the society. At first, the goal was considered to be only the liberation of peasants from serfdom, but soon another goal was added to this goal - the introduction of a constitutional monarchy in Russia. But how to achieve these goals? Sometimes the Decembrists had plans for regicide, but after discussion they were rejected; there was not yet complete political unanimity in society; a group of more radical members fought with more moderate ones.
Internal ideological struggle and unclear tactics forced the Decembrists to liquidate the first secret society and organize a second one in 1818, called the Union of Welfare.

Union of Welfare.

The Union of Welfare, like the Union of Salvation, was a secret revolutionary society. Its members also set themselves the goal of fighting serfdom and autocracy. But, unlike the first, narrow and small, conspiratorial organization, they wanted to significantly expand it numerical composition and actively influence the creation of advanced
“public” opinion, which, according to the Decembrists, could be a decisive force in preparing a future coup. The organization has grown to 200 people.

The charter of the new society was written, named after the color of the binding
"Green Book". Its first part set out the general rules and goals of society; it contained a formulation of the main political goals known only to the leading members. The society was led by the so-called “Indigenous government”.
According to the charter, not only nobles, but also merchants, townspeople, clergy and free peasants could be accepted as members of the Union. Members of the Welfare Union pledged to constantly develop and support progressive opinions everywhere, condemn serfdom, despotism of power, and oppression of the people.

But, along with the growing discontent of the oppressed masses in the country, as well as with the growth of the pan-European revolutionary situation of 1818-1820. The Union began to clearly “move to the left” in politically. It was dominated by supporters of the republic and decisive open action. At the beginning of 1820, a meeting of the Root Council took place in St. Petersburg, where a report was delivered
Pestel on the best form of government. Pestel characterized everything “for” and
“against” constitutional monarchy and republic, giving strong preference to the latter. In a roll call vote, all members of society voted in favor of a republic.

In connection with the change in the program, a need arose for new tactics that would ensure the rapid implementation of the set political goals. Around 1820 The Decembrists, military people, began to discuss the issue of a decisive military attack on the autocracy. The indignation of the Semenovsky regiment seemed to confirm the correctness of the decision on the new tactics: the guardsmen had already organized an independent performance.

In January 1821 A congress of the Union's Root Council convened in Moscow
Prosperity. The Congress declared the Union “dissolved”, and under the cover of this resolution, which facilitated the selection of unreliable members, the society secretly reorganized again: the Southern and Northern societies arose, which prepared the Decembrist uprising in 1825.

Founding of the Southern Society.

In the 2nd Army, stationed in Ukraine, there worked the so-called
The southern administration of the Union of Welfare with its center in Tulchin - the seat of the headquarters of the 2nd Army. The head of the Southern Council was Pestel. Having learned from their delegates who were present at the congress of the Root Council of the Union of Welfare about the closure of the society, Pestel and his like-minded Decembrists Yushnevsky,
Kryukov, Wolf, Ivashev, Baryatinsky and others - decided to decree
“closing” does not obey in “society to continue.” New organization, which arose in March 1821. in Tulchin, received the name of the Southern Society.

It was decided to periodically convene congresses of leading members of the secret society. The first congress of leaders of the Southern Society met in Kyiv in January 1822. and heard Pestel’s report on the foundations of his constitutional project (“Russian Truth”). And a year later, at the second congress of leaders in January 1823. the foundations of Pestel's constitution were adopted.

“Russian Truth” is the first republican constitution that has come down to us in the history of the revolutionary movement of Russia. It declared that serfdom (“Slavery”) must be “decisively abolished” and “the nobility must certainly forever renounce the vile advantage of possessing other people.” In addition to the new structure of government bodies, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press with responsibility for published works only in court, freedom of movement and equal justice for all were affirmed.

Foundation of the Northern Society.

After the liquidation of the Union of Welfare in 1821. a secret society was also formed in St. Petersburg. Its main core consisted of N. Muravyov,
Nikolai Turgenev, M. Lunin, S. Trubetskoy, E. Obolensky and I. Pushchin. Subsequently, the composition expanded significantly. There was clearly a noticeable struggle between two currents - a moderate, constitutional-monarchical one, and a more radical one, marked by republican sympathies. A number of members of the Northern Society returned to the slogan of a constitutional monarchy and decided less radically than members of the Southern Society peasant question. But the common struggle against serfdom and autocracy nevertheless closely united both societies, which decided to act together. Northern society, like the Southern one, adopted the tactics of a military coup.

An influential member of the Northern Society, especially in the first years of its existence, was one of the initiators of the Decembrist movement - Nikita
Muravyov. He developed a constitutional project, which was very animatedly discussed among the Decembrists.

Nikita Muravyov's draft constitution was characterized by a high property qualification. Estates were destroyed and equality of all before the law was established. Russia was declared a federation, which was divided into 15
"powers" with their capital. In every power supreme body power was a special representative institution, divided into two chambers: the Upper House - the State Duma and the Lower House - the chamber of elected deputies of the state.
The emperor had only executive power; he could delay the adoption of the law by returning it to parliament and putting it up for secondary discussion, but he could not reject it completely. The table of ranks was destroyed, positions in the state became elective. The immediate destruction of military settlements was announced, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, press, assembly, and movement were proclaimed.

Society of United Slavs.

The Society of United Slavs, like the main Decembrist organization, had a complex initial history. In the same 1818, when the Union of Welfare was formed in Moscow, in Ukraine, in the town of Reshetilovka,
Poltava province, the cadets Borisov brothers, together with several comrades, founded the secret political Society of First Consent, which pursued the goal of fighting for a democratic system. In 1823 the young organization transformed into the Society of United Slavs, which set the goal of founding a powerful democratic republican federation of Slavic countries. The federation was supposed to include countries that society considered Slavic: Russia, Poland, Bohemia, Moravia, Hungary,
Transylvania, Serbia, Moldavia, Wallachia, Dalmatia and Croatia. The borders of this vast federation were supposed to reach four seas - Black, White,
Baltic and Adriatic; four anchors - in accordance with the four seas - symbolized in the proposed coat of arms sea ​​power Slavic Federation. Each state that was part of the federation had to develop its own constitution, reflecting its characteristics. Serfdom was abolished everywhere in the federation; one of the “rules” of the United Slavs read: “Do not want to have a slave when you yourself do not want to be a slave.” This republican federation of Slavic countries seemed to members of society to be a rich, free state with a vibrant economic life. The tactics of the military revolution were alien to the Society of the United Slavs. Its members believed that military revolutions are “not the cradle, but the coffin of freedom, in the name of which they are committed,” and were supporters of the popular mass revolution; True, the program of the Slavic Society has not yet been developed in detail and clearly formalized.

This is how the question of Slavic unity entered the Russian revolutionary movement. It was based not only on the idea of ​​​​the blood unity of peoples close in culture and speaking Slavic languages, but - what is especially important - the democratic idea of ​​​​a new system won by the revolution, in which both serfdom and autocracy were destroyed. “The society had the main goal of liberating all Slavic tribes from autocracy,” says Gorbachevsky, a member of the society, in his memoirs.

Merger of the Society of United Slavs with the Southern Society of Decembrists.

In the fall of 1825, on the eve of the speech, the Society of United Slavs joined the Southern Society and formed it special department- Slavic government. This does not mean, however, that all members of society abandoned their goal of creating an all-Slavic democratic federation. This goal, in their opinion, was only being pushed into the future; The revolutionary coup in Russia was recognized as a priority. Subsequently liberated by the revolution
Russia itself was supposed to become the support of the liberated Slavic peoples.
“Russia, freed from tyranny, will openly promote the goal
Slavic Union - to liberate Poland, Bohemia, Moravia and other Slavic lands, establish free governments in them and unite everyone in a federal union,” Bestuzhev-Ryumin convinced the Slavs, advising them to unite with the Southern society.

The first attempts of the Decembrists to publish their own magazines.

The Decembrists made their first attempt to create their own magazine on the basis of the Arzamas literary society. In 1817 “Arzamas” included three prominent figures of the Decembrist movement - a member of the Union of Salvation N.I. Turgenev, a member of the future Union of Welfare M.F. Orlov and a future active participant
Northern Society, author of the Constitution N.M. Muravyov. The Decembrists sought to take Arzamas beyond the literary circle and direct its activities towards socio-political issues. On behalf of the already restructured society, they then intended to publish a magazine.

The idea belonged to Turgenev, whose proposal, argued in detail, was read out at a meeting of the societies. Turgenev was supported by advanced Arzamas residents - and, above all, Orlov and Vyazemsky. Orlov made a passionate speech, arguing for the need to organize a magazine with a primary interest in political issues, in “true free-thinking.” Vyazemsky also emphasized that the leading place in the magazine should belong to “politics, gagging censorship.”

After the decision to organize the magazine was made, Orlov,
Turgenev and Vyazemsky began to develop its program and structure.
They saw the magazine as a political and literary organ at the same time; all departments of the magazine were called upon to serve “the dissemination of ideas of freedom that are decent in Russia in its current state.”

Vyazemsky outlined his views on the tasks and nature of the Arzamas magazine in detail in a note reflecting the views of all leading Arzamas residents. influence public opinion is possible only by “publishing a magazine,” since “any other road would be more distant.” Considering the history of Russian journalism, Vyazemsky singles out the names of Novikov and
Karamzin, whose experience should be used. “It remains for us to combine the examples of our two journalists in the magazine and divide the publication into three categories: Manners, Literature and Politics.” Assuming that censorship is unlikely to allow touching on the socio-political life of Russia, Vyazemsky recommends filling the politics department with a statement of “the most useful measures taken by alien governments to achieve the great goal - the strength and prosperity of peoples”, as well as disputes of “political light on subjects important in the state structure " The “Morals” department in the Vyazemsky magazine recommends that it be compiled according to the examples of satirical journalism of the 18th century, and, above all, Novikov’s magazines “Drone” and “Painter”: “An article about Manners, which is good to call a Painter in honor of the deceased, should be composed of: pictures of general moral stories, correspondence with all provinces (fictitious or true, it doesn’t matter, but probable), satirical conversations, etc.” Vyazemsky proposes to use the proceeds from the magazine (if any) to support disadvantaged, capable writers.

The publication of the magazine, however, did not take place, since the Decembrists failed to change the direction of Arzamas’ activities. When Orlov, Turgenev and
The Muravievs realized that the people of Arzamas were not inclined to accept their program, they left the society.

The plan of the future Decembrist dates back to 1818, as mentioned above.
A. Bestuzhev to publish his own magazine “Zimtserla”, which never saw the light of day.

From the end of 1818 N.I. Turgenev again takes measures to organize the publication of the magazine. To do this, he decides to create a legal “Society of 1919 and
XIX century" and on his behalf from the beginning of 1820. publish a magazine called “Russian of the 19th Century” or “Archive of Political Sciences and Russian Literature.” The magazine was supposed to serve as the legal organ of the Union of Welfare. N.I. Turgenev, N.M. Muravyov,
F.N. Glinka, I.G. Burtsev, P.I. Koloshin, M.K. Gribovsky, as well as Pushkin,
Kuchelbecker, Kunitsyn, Vyazemsky and others, who were not part of the secret society, but knew about its existence.

The magazine was conceived by Turgenev as a socio-political organ, the main goal of which was “to disseminate sound political ideas among us.” The program of the future magazine included eight departments: 1) General politics, or the science of education and government; 2) Political economy, or the science of state economy; 3) Finance; 4) Law; 5) History; 6)
Statistics; 7) Philosophy (with subsections: Education, Literature, Descriptions of morals); 8) Mixture. Determining the content and form of the subsection “Description of Morals,” Turgenev took advantage of Vyazemsky’s thought and proposed the name
“Painter”, “both because this name is consistent with the subject, and to restore the memory of the ancient magazine that was published under this name.”

“If possible, we will write against slavery,” Turgenev informed his brother Sergei on January 24, 1819. “...All articles must have the goal of free thought.” When sending him Prospectus, a new magazine, Turgenev wrote: “Since we cannot directly say what needs to be said, I believe that all this should be dressed up in the clothes of theories.” These words accurately characterize the magazine practice of those years: journalism prohibited by censorship was an integral part of scientific articles.

The magazine was supposed to be sold “at the cheapest price for greater consumption,” which indicates the desire of the Decembrists to widely disseminate their ideas.

This magazine venture of Turgenev also did not materialize. Obviously, he was unable to obtain permission: since 1818, the government was very reluctant to agree to the opening of new periodicals. The political orientation of Turgenev’s journal could also raise suspicions of censorship.

The Decembrists’ new plan to create a socio-political body, this time not in Russia, but abroad, dates back to March 1820, when M.F. Orlov proposed to P.A. Vyazemsky, who was in Poland at the office of Alexander
I, publish a weekly magazine “Russian Observer in Warsaw”, similar in type to French weekly newspapers. Orlov outlined the range of main issues for the future magazine: friendship, political, economic and cultural ties of the Polish and Russian peoples, materials on the constitution
(complete translation of the constitution granted to Poland by Alexander I, all speeches in
Warsaw Sejm, etc.), detailed information about political events in
Europe, etc. He himself, the brothers Nikolai and Sergei Turgenev and others had to send material from Russia. This endeavor did not materialize;
Vyazemsky was soon suspected of freethinking and recalled to St. Petersburg, where a secret secret was established behind him.

In October 1824 Decembrist P.A. Mukhanov sought permission to publish the monthly Military Journal. Mukhanov not only did not receive this permission, but he was even reprimanded by his service for making a request to the Moscow Censorship Committee without obtaining the prior consent of his immediate superiors.

"Son of the Fatherland"

Journal of N.I. Grech “Son of the Fatherland” in 1816–1825. in terms of staff, quality of materials and strict frequency (published regularly once a week), it occupied one of the first places among Russian publications. What distinguished “Son of the Fatherland” from other magazines of that time was that in 1813–1818. under him there were two weekly supplements dedicated to political news Europe.

"Son of the Fatherland" was a historical, political and literary magazine.
Each issue opened with a serious scientific article (most often on a historical or economic topic), a review of European political events or a detailed critical analysis of a new work, often literary and artistic. Next were three or four poems. The “Modern Russian Bibliography” department published news about all books published in Russia, often without any annotations or evaluations, i.e.
“Son of the Fatherland” introduced accounting and registration bibliography into Russian journalism. In addition, the magazine had sections: “Travel”, “Mixture” and
“Charity” (who donated, for what and how much).

In 1816–1825 Two groups of employees participated in the magazine: moderate-liberal ones led by Grech, as well as the Decembrists and their allies. Participation in the journal of the Decembrists F. Glinka, N. Turgenev, N. Muravyov, N. Kutuzov,
A. Martos, K. Ryleev, A. Bestuzhev, V. Kuchelbecker and writers close to them: Pushkin, Griboyedov, Kunitsyn, Vyazemsky, Somov - again made the Grech magazine a progressive press organ.

The Decembrist line in the magazine, first of all, was presented scientific and journalistic articles. An example of them is “Discourse on the need to have a history of the Patriotic War of 1812” by F. Glinka (1816,
No. 4). The author, a member of the Union of Salvation, and later of the Union of Welfare, actively collaborated in “Son of the Fatherland” as a scholar-historian, publicist and poet.

In his “Discourse” Glinka specifically talks about what syllable should be used to describe the events of 1812. Simplicity and clarity in words, solemnity, grandeur in tonality - these are the necessary qualities of future history. Historians must “expel from their descriptions all words and even turns of phrase borrowed from foreign dialects.” Glinka calls on scientists to begin creating the history of the Patriotic War as quickly as possible, while the participants and eyewitnesses of the events are still alive. He seems to emphasize that the history of the war needs to be written according to the truthful testimony of contemporaries, and not according to “posters”
Trampling and government reports.

More boldly than other magazines, Son of the Fatherland covered the issue of the situation of the Russian serf peasantry. If many publications did not touch upon it at all, if Kachenovsky’s “Bulletin of Europe” strongly argued that everyone “should be satisfied with his position,” and “Russian Vestnik”
Sergei Glinka called on writers and journalists to show that the peasants have “fathers-landowners” who take care of the needs of the peasants as if they were their own, then “Son of the Fatherland” wrote with deep respect about the common people and resolutely opposed those authors who talk about them “sometimes with contempt, sometimes with disgust, sometimes they represent him as stupid” (1818, no. 42). Unable to speak openly about the situation of serfs, Son of the Fatherland employees often use translated material for this purpose or touch on this topic in articles devoted to other issues. So, A. Bestuzhev placed in no.
38 for 1818 article “On the current moral and physical state of the Livonian and Estonian peasants,” which is a translation of a chapter from the work of the Bavarian envoy to the Russian court de Bray, precisely the one in which the author wrote about the plight of the Russian serfs and spoke with praise about their working capacity, natural talent, high morality.

Among the journalistic speeches of “Son of the Fatherland” in 1816–1820. Kunitsyn’s articles “On the Constitution” and “Comments on the Fundamentals” stood out Russian law”, his article about N. Turgenev’s book “Experience in the Theory of Taxes”, N. Kutuzov’s article “On the Causes of the Prosperity and Greatness of Nations”, N. Muravyov’s article “Discourse on the Lives of Suvorov”, etc.

In literary disputes, “Son of the Fatherland” showed himself to be a fighter for romanticism.
The psychological romanticism of the school was also presented on its pages.
Zhukovsky (poets of his school: Delvig, Pletnev, Milonov, at first A.
Bestuzhev), and the civil romanticism of the Decembrists and their allies. But at the same time, the poets F. Glinka, Griboyedov, Katenin,
Kuchelbecker, Krylov, Pushkin. The civic direction in poetry, while not being the only one in “Son of the Fatherland,” was felt quite strongly.

The main line of the best critical articles of “Son of the Fatherland” is the struggle for the creation of original, national literature, for its civic content, for “high” genres and “high” style. Griboedov, Vyazemsky, A. Bestuzhev,
Ryleev, Kuchelbecker, Katenin, Somov and others. They defended their views in fierce battles with reactionary journalism and, above all, with Vestnik
Europe" Kachenovsky.

“Son of the Fatherland” paid much attention to Pushkin’s work. Poems
“Ruslan and Lyudmila”, “Prisoner of the Caucasus”, “Bakhchisarai Fountain” are considered in the magazine as a triumph of “true” romanticism and nationality. The first chapter of "Eugene Onegin", published in 1825. together with “A Conversation between a Bookseller and a Poet,” Decembrist critics were unable to evaluate correctly: they placed “Eugene Onegin” lower than romantic poems.

IN educational literature Sometimes the opinion is expressed that “Son of the Fatherland” after 1820. “turned sharply towards reaction.” This is not true. Until the very end
In 1825, the magazine Grech published sharp journalistic and critical articles and wonderful examples of civic poetry, and the participation of the Decembrists Ryleev, A. Bestuzhev, and Kuchelbecker increased towards the end of the period.
The year 1825 is indicative in this sense.

This year, “Son of the Fatherland” paid great attention to national liberation movement in Europe and America. The Decembrists dreamed of introducing a republican system in Russia, so they welcomed the creation
United States of America. However, the Decembrists, like Pushkin later, were quite critical of American “democracy,” emphasizing the barbaric attitude of “civilized” Americans towards “colored people.” Deep sympathy for blacks and a passionate protest against racial discrimination legalized in the United States are contained in the article “The experiences of North Americans to resettle their black compatriots back to Africa” (1825, No. 20). It said: “The prejudice that places the black African generation, which has been so long condemned to painful slavery, much inferior to the white one, reigns so universally in America that even the enlightened United States could not free itself from it. Black body color in the eyes of Americans is a sign of mental shortcomings and almost a reason for contempt.”

One of latest performances Decembrists in “Son of the Fatherland” there was an article by Ryleev “A few thoughts about poetry”, published in No. 22, a month before the uprising. Ryleev objects to the formal division of poetry into classical and romantic, because it’s all about the “spirit of poetry” (the internal content of a work of art, expressed in its civic orientation, in the reflection of high thoughts and feelings in it), and not in form.
With his article, Ryleev, as it were, completes the struggle of the Decembrists for literature that is original in form, highly ideological, and civil in content. He addresses his contemporaries: “Leaving the useless debate about romanticism and classicism, let us try to destroy in ourselves the spirit of slavish imitation and, turning to the source of true poetry, let us make every effort to realize in our writings the ideals of high feelings, thoughts and eternal truths, always close to man and always dissatisfied with those known to him.” Ryleev strongly emphasizes that only this direction of literature corresponds to the “spirit of the times”, i.e. socio-political tasks facing the Russian intelligentsia.

Thus, up to the events on Senate Square The Decembrists continued to collaborate in Son of the Fatherland, although they also had at their disposal publications that were closer to them. They did this because Decembrist magazines, as a rule, were published no more than once a month, with a small circulation of 300–500 copies, while “Son of the Fatherland” was published weekly and its circulation reached 1,200 copies. He was the most popular magazine in St. Petersburg, Moscow and the provinces. And this quite suited the Decembrists, who were interested in the wide dissemination of their socio-political, literary and aesthetic views.

After the Decembrist uprising, “Son of the Fatherland” moves into the camp of reactionary journalism. Already in 1825 Grech invited Bulgarin as co-editor, and in 1829. "Son of the Fatherland" merges with the magazine
Bulgarin “Northern Archive” and begins to be published under the united name
“Son of the Fatherland and the Northern Archive. Journal of Literature, Politics and Contemporary History.”

"Competitor of education and charity"

"Competitor" was created as a scientific and literary magazine with four permanent departments: "Science and Arts", "Fine Prose",
"Poems", "Mixture". The central place was occupied by scientific articles on Russian and foreign history, philosophy and aesthetics, geography and ethnography, history and theory of literature, and Russian folk art. There was no department of politics, few economic and journalistic articles were published, but artistic material was more widely represented. The “Fine Prose” section contained “picturesque travels” (“Travel to
Revel" by A. Bestuzhev, "Notes about Holland" by N. Bestuzhev, etc.) and stories
(“Zinovy ​​Bogdan Khmelnitsky” by F. Glinka, “Igor”, “Lyuboslav”, “Alexander”
V. Narezhny, “Second evening at the bivouac” by A. Bestuzhev, etc.).

If members of the Free Society of Lovers of Russian Literature participated in “Son of the Fatherland” only as influential collaborators, then in 1818. they began publishing their own monthly magazine, The Competitor of Education and Benevolence.

The goals of the journal are defined in its title. The word “competitor” comes from the word “jealous,” which in the 19th century. mattered also
“strive”, “try”, “care”. Thus, a competitor of education and charity is a person who, together with others, strives to spread knowledge and help the poor. Proceeds from the publication went to support needy scientists, writers and students.

Members of the Free Society sought to give The Competitor an encyclopedic character; they published materials varied in content and form in order to attract various circles of writers to the magazine.
However, this worked poorly, and the magazine's circulation did not exceed 300–500 copies. Obviously, complete success The “competitor” was hampered by the absence political information and less, compared, for example, with “Son of the Fatherland,” attention to issues literary criticism. There was no independent department of criticism in The Competitor, but the bibliography was part of the department
"Mixture". Publishers preferred to publish articles of a general nature, in which the theoretical foundations of romanticism were defined and defended, rather than to publish regular reviews of new books.

In its first year of publication, The Competitor of Education and Benevolence was a rather lackluster magazine; he perked up significantly after
The leadership of the free society of lovers of Russian literature passed to the left wing. F. Glinka, elected in 1819 President of the Society, seeks to outline the Decembrist line. Works begin to be published in the magazine
Pushkin, Kuchelbecker, A. and N. Bestuzhev, Vyazemsky, Somov, the cooperation of F. Glinka himself is intensifying; then Ryleev, Kornilovich and other Decembrists came to the magazine.

“Competitor” is characterized by an appeal to themes and plots of national Russian history, especially the history of the Patriotic War of 1812, propaganda of freedom-loving patriotic ideas and hatred of tyranny, education of civil courage, defense of romanticism in its progressive tendencies. Not only the choice of topics and their interpretation, but also the very tone of presentation, patriotic pathos, and “sublime” style made “Competitor” a Decembrist publication.

In 1820, Kuchelbecker’s “European Letters” were published in “Competitor” and “Nevsky Spectator”. In the form of an imaginary journey to the 25th century, the author depicts contemporary Europe. The author's discussions about a free society further emphasized the lack of rights of his compatriots under an autocratic regime.

One of the first Russian magazines, Competitor, began to introduce readers to the best works of folk poetry. About poetic talent, beauty spiritual world The Russian people are spoken of by numerous articles devoted to various types of folk poetry: “Characters of the morals and spirit of the Russian people, extracted from songs” (1818), “Something about Russian folk songs” (1818), “About the Russian wedding ceremony” (1822), “ About folk poetry" (1823), etc. In the "natural" poetry of the people, the Decembrists saw one of the sources of truly romantic art.

Of greatest importance in substantiating the principles of civil romanticism was the series of articles by O. Somov “On romantic poetry”, published in four issues of “Competitor” for 1823. Somov sees the advantage of romantic poetry over classicism in that it meets the requirements of modern life. Only romanticism, with its interest in the folk and local, can ensure the development of Russian literature. We need poetry that reflects the main features national character Russian man, “glorious for his military and civic virtues.”
Russians must have “their own folk poetry, inimitable and independent of the traditions of others,” concludes Somov, expressing the views of poets and critics of the Decembrist circle. His words sounded like a call to create a national literature.

The works gave a civil orientation to the poetic department
F. Glinka, Kuchelbecker, Pushkin and especially Ryleev, who published in
“Competitor” contains several national patriotic thoughts, an excerpt from “Gaydamak” and parts from the poem “Voinarovsky”.

After the defeat of the uprising on Senate Square, the Free Society disintegrated, as its main participants were arrested or brought to trial in connection with the conspiracy. “Competitor” also settled on the November book.
Subscribers never received the last issue for 1825.

"Nevsky Spectator"

In addition to “Competitor,” another St. Petersburg magazine, “Nevsky Spectator,” was associated with the Free Society of Lovers of Russian Literature.
It was published monthly from January 1820 to June 1821. Master of Ethical and Political Sciences I. M. Snitkin. Many members contributed to the magazine
Free Society of Lovers of Russian Literature.

By its type, “Nevsky Spectator” was a scientific and literary magazine, more precisely, a scientific and journalistic one, with a noticeable interest in political history, economics, education issues. The magazine had permanent sections:
“History and Politics”, “Public Economy”, “Education”, “Morals”,
“Literature”, “Criticism”, “Fine Arts” (music, painting, architecture), “Mixture”. The first two sections consisted almost entirely of articles from the publisher himself; the “Education” section was led by N. Rashkov, a member of the Free Society of Lovers of Russian Literature. In the rest, employees changed, which affected the position of the magazine.

In the departments “Literature” and “Criticism” there are works and statements of various social nature: defense of Zhukovsky and sharp criticism of him, publication of excerpts from Pushkin’s poem “Ruslan and Lyudmila” and malicious attacks against it. The poems of Pushkin, Ryleev, Kuchelbecker are published, and after them the writings of Count Khvostov and other unimportant poets. However, this is easy to explain by imagining the history of the Nevsky Spectator by period.
There were four such periods: the first - from January to April 1820, the second - from May to September, the third - from October 1820. to March 1821 and the fourth - from April to June 1821.

In the first period, the leading employees of the magazine in the departments “Literature” and
The “critics” were Kuchelbecker and Pushkin. In four months, Kuchelbecker published here six poems, the story “The Siege of the City of Aubigny”, excerpts from the social utopia “European Letters” and a critical review article
"A Look at Current Literature." Each of the four issues contained poems by Pushkin.

As of the May issue, cooperation with Nevsky Spectator ceases.
Pushkin, Kuchelbecker, F. Glinka and other advanced poets: their place is taken by third-rate conservative writers - D. Khvostov,
F. Sinelnikov and others. “Nevsky Spectator” is now conducting a polemic with O. Somov, who defended the principles of progressive romanticism in “Son of the Fatherland”, attacks Pushkin as the author of the poem “Ruslan and Lyudmila”, accusing him of violating good taste, in immorality and liberalism.

In October 1820 Ryleev and Somov come to the Nevsky Spectator; six months
Ryleev heads the literary department and the “Morals” department, Somov - the critical one.
In issue 10 of the magazine one of the most bright works civil romanticism - Ryleev’s satire “To the Temporary Worker,” in which everyone saw a bold criticism of the martinet and despot Count Arakcheev. The satire “To the Temporary Worker” was an exceptional success among the reading public and alerted the censorship. In addition to this satire, Ryleev published about twenty works in verse and prose in Nevsky Spectator, including essays “Provincial in
Petersburg" and the story "Eccentric".

At the same time, the critical activity of the theorist of civil romanticism O. Somov developed widely in the Nevsky Spectator. He is waging a consistent struggle for national Russian literature, for its advanced direction against imitation and uncertainty. With his polemical articles, Somov continues the line outlined in the article
Kuchelbecker “A Look at Current Literature”, and opposes the subjectivism and mysticism of Zhukovsky’s work. Having said that in Zhukovsky’s last poems “everything is German, except letters and words,” Somov decisively declares: “True talent must belong to one’s fatherland.”
(1821,№3).

The March issue of 1821 ends the collaboration between Ryleev and
Somov in “Nevsky Spectator”, they move into “Competitor” and “Son of the Fatherland”, and in 1823–1825. together they will participate in the almanac
"Polar Star". Since April 1821, the participation of epigonic writers in the Nevsky Spectator has again increased, i.e., what happened in the second period is repeated. Again Count Khvostov took the initiative: his poems or poetic messages to him were published, reactionary writers M. Dmitriev, Y. Rostovtsev and others collaborated with Khvostov. Such employees could not ensure the success of the Nevsky Spectator, so in July 1821 Snitkin stopped publishing magazine.

"Polar Star"

The St. Petersburg almanac “Polar Star” is one of the most interesting periodicals of the first quarter of the 19th century. It was produced by A. A. Bestuzhev and
K. F. Ryleev; Three books were published - in 1823, 1824 and 1825. No modern press has had such success with readers.

At the beginning of the publication of their almanac, Ryleev and Bestuzhev were not new to literature and journalism. Ryleev has already gained fame as the author of the sharp satire “To the Temporary Worker” and the civil “Dumas”, Bestuzhev - as a poet and talented critic; both collaborated in St. Petersburg magazines and participated in the Free Society of Lovers of Russian Literature.

For the purpose of censorship camouflage, the publishers gave the Polar Star a form characteristic of the almanacs of that time as representatives of “small” periodicals: it was printed in a format of a twelfth of a paper sheet and the title stated that this was “a pocket book for lovers and lovers of Russian literature.” Ryleev and Bestuzhev wanted to emphasize that they intended to publish a purely literary almanac, without deviating from Karamzin’s traditions.

And yet, provincial readers immediately guessed that “The North Star” was not so much a literary and artistic almanac as a socio-political almanac. Its very name echoed Pushkin’s poem “To Chaadaev” (1818), widely distributed in handwritten copies, and was perceived as a symbol of freedom and a happy future. In addition, after the publication of the first book, Bestuzhev and Ryleev informed readers that by undertaking the publication “ North Star", they "had in mind more than one amusement of the public", that the almanac is not intended for a narrow circle of readers, but for "many."

The publishers attracted the best literary forces to collaborate with Polar Star - Pushkin, Griboyedov, F. Glinka, Kuchelbecker,
D. Davydov, Vyazemsky, Somov and others. Even Grech and Bulgarin occasionally participated in the almanac; they still hid behind ostentatious liberalism and did not break ties with progressive figures; besides, their participation in “Polar Star” weakened the vigilance of censorship.

Ryleev headed the poetry department in the almanac and published his “thoughts”, excerpts from the poems “Voinarovsky” and “Nalivaiko”. Bestuzhev was in charge of prose; he published critical reviews of literature and stories imbued with the ideas of love of freedom. He was responsible for the main publishing and editorial responsibilities, negotiations with employees and censors, selection of material, compilation of books and proofreading. Many contemporaries perceived the “Polar Star” as Bestuzhev’s almanac.

Each book opened with a review of literature written by Bestuzhev, and then there were works in prose and poetry, which were a kind of artistic illustration of the positions put forward in it. Bestuzhev's articles served as an organizing principle in the books of the Polar Star, giving them a clear direction.

When characterizing the socio-political position of The Polar Star, it is necessary to remember that more than two years separate its third book from the first.
During this time, significant shifts took place in the worldview of publishers, which could not but affect the materials of Polar Star. Unified and purposeful as an organ of Decembrist periodicals, the almanac developed and improved from book to book: every year the political face of the “Polar Star” was more clearly defined due to the fact that Ryleev and Bestuzhev more and more fully mastered the ideas of noble revolution.

"Polar Star" for 1823 Bestuzhev and Ryleev prepared in the fall of 1822.
At that time, they were not yet Decembrists: Ryleev was not disillusioned with the constitutional monarchy, Bestuzhev did not completely overcome the influence of Zhukovsky and Karamzin. Insufficient clarity of political and literary views publishers affected the content of the first book of the Polar Star and, above all, was noticeable in Bestuzhev’s review “A Look at Old and New Literature in Russia.”

The artistic materials in the first book of The Polar Star were not uniform in their direction. Advanced trends were expressed by Ryleev’s thoughts:
“Rogneda”, “Boris Godunov”, “Mstislav Udaloy”. F. Glinka’s poem “The Cry of the Captive Jews” is imbued with an ardent defense of human freedom.

Pushkin appears in the almanac as an exiled poet. From Odessa, he sent the poem “Ovid” to the first book of the almanac, in which he compared his fate with the fate of the Roman poet Ovid, expelled from his homeland by Emperor Octavian Augustus. In addition, three more were printed:
“Greek Woman”, “Warrior’s Dream” and “Elegy” (“Alas, why does she shine...”).

The best works of fiction in prose "Polar Star" on
1823 there was Bestuzhev’s story “Roman and Olga” (from the history of the free
Novgorod), in which the civic virtues of the Russian man were poeticized - courage, boldness, independence, love of freedom, and his essay
“Evening at the Bivouac,” depicting the life of officers on the campaign.

But the first book of “Polar Star” also published works
Grech and Bulgarin, the mediocre Count Khvostov and other “well-intentioned” writers.

Zhukovsky, in addition to translations from “ Maid of Orleans"Schiller and the Aeneid"
Virgil, placed five lyrical poems, three of which are devoted to the themes of separation and death, filled with sadness and melancholy. Zhukovsky’s participation in the first book of “The Polar Star” is evidence of their literary and aesthetic position that has not yet been fully established.

The second book of the almanac – “Polar Star” for 1824 – was censored
December 20, 1823 At this time, Ryleev was already a member of the Northern Society, and
Bestuzhev is prepared to join it. The views of the publishers were determined, so the political line of the almanac became more distinct.

The almanac opens with Bestuzhev’s review “A Look at Russian Literature during 1823.” At the beginning of the article, and not at the end, as was the case in the first review, the reasons that “slowed down the progress of literature” are considered, and then a description of the works for the past year is given. He makes the development of literature directly dependent on the socio-political situation.

It is significant that not a single lyric poem by Zhukovsky appeared in the second book of The Polar Star. But Pushkin’s contribution increased significantly - he published seven poems. Kuchelbecker included an excerpt from the poem “Svyatopolk”. Bestuzhev gave in the almanac “A Novel in Seven Letters” and the story “Castle Neuhausen”, Ryleev - excerpts from the poem
"Voinarovsky."

The third book of The Polar Star was published in the summer of 1825. In terms of ideological richness, it significantly exceeds the first two: both publishers are already Decembrists, active participants in the Northern Society, leaders of its left faction - the Republican.

"A look at Russian literature during 1824 and early 1825."
Bestuzhev, with whom “The North Star” opens, is not only a literary, but in the full sense of the word a political speech. The thesis is again put forward: we have no literature, i.e. such literature that would satisfy the needs of Russian social life. Why? There is no real social excitement, and since the mind “is not occupied with politics,” it “rushed into nepotism and gossip... I’m not talking about literature alone: ​​all our societies are infected with the same disease,” the critic emphasizes. Bestuzhev's third review not only affirms the dependence of literature on public life - it contains a powerful call for active political struggle. “We begin to feel and think - but by touch. Life necessarily requires movement, and a developing mind requires action,” says Bestuzhev, outlining the path revolutionary activities for his contemporaries. A vivid artistic illustration of this thesis of the article is an excerpt from the poem
Ryleev “Nalivaiko”, published in the almanac. Through the lips of the hero, a revolutionary feat is glorified: the fight against the oppressors of the people is necessary, even if one has to die in this fight.

In his third review, Bestuzhev repeatedly hinted at the inevitability of a revolutionary uprising in Russia. Only in this sense, for example, should one understand his words: “Gunpowder in the air produces only flashes, but compressed into iron, it explodes with shots and moves and destroys masses.”

Reviewing Russian literature for 1824 and the beginning of 1825, Bestuzhev ranks Griboyedov’s “Woe from Wit” most highly, defining comedy as “a phenomenon that we have not known since the time of “The Minor.” Despite the strictness of censorship, he was able to reveal to readers the protesting nature of Chatsky’s image as an active fighter for high civil ideals, who has “soul in his feelings, intelligence and wit in his speeches.” “The future will appreciate this comedy with dignity and place it among the first folk creations,” asserted
Bestuzhev. Next to “Woe from Wit” Bestuzhev places a handwritten poem by Pushkin
“Gypsies” as a truly original work, in which “lightning sketches of free life and deep passions sparkle.” On the contrary, Bestuzhev, like many Decembrists, had a less enthusiastic attitude towards the first chapter of Eugene Onegin, which had recently been published. lyrical digressions, filled with high feelings and “noble impulses,” where “the dream takes the poet away from the prose of the society being described.” Bestuzhev in his third review does not say a word about Zhukovsky’s poems, but only mentions the translation of Schiller’s “The Maid of Orleans”.

Bestuzhev pays much attention to modern Russian journalism and criticism. Noting a noticeable revival in the press, Bestuzhev speaks quite sternly about many publications. Emphasizing the reactionary direction of the Vestnik
Europe,” he writes that this magazine “talked about the old and measured the new with a rusty compass.” The author of the review strongly opposes
"critical bickering" characteristic of many journals (and especially
"Bulletin of Europe"). He requires serious, principled criticism, which would analyze the essence of the work, and not petty polemics, would be “sensible and thorough,” and “would not pore over commas.”

The artistic material of “The Polar Star” in 1825 was distinguished by great ideological consistency. The third book of the almanac does not contain a single poetic work by Zhukovsky. It is no coincidence that Bestuzhev, following his review, included an excerpt from Pushkin’s poem “Gypsies” and the first excerpt from Ryleev’s poem “Nalivaiko” (“The Death of the Chigirinsky Headman”), which openly justified the merciless reprisal against the enslavers. The pinnacle of Ryleev’s creativity and the best example of the propaganda poetry of the Decembrists was the second excerpt from the poem “Nalivaiko” - “Confession of Nalivaika”. It not only glorified the revolutionary feat of the defenders of freedom, but directly indicated the imminent onset of revolutionary events in Russia.

As is known, the theme of the robber, as a symbol of love of freedom and independence, was often developed in the poetic practice of the Decembrists.
It is significant that in the third book of “The Polar Star” two works are devoted to this topic: “The Robber Brothers” by Pushkin and “The Robbers” by N. Yazykov.

In the prose section of the third book, the ideas of love of freedom were most clearly expressed by Bestuzhev’s own story “The Traitor” and an essay by his brother Nikolai
Bestuzhev "Gibraltar". In "The Traitor" to the hypocritical, treacherous Vladimir
Sitzky, who defected to the Poles, is contrasted with his brother Mikhail, who bravely fights for the freedom of his homeland and dies in this fight. Essay by N.
Bestuzhev’s “Gibraltar” is dedicated to the revolutionary events in Spain; it expresses undisguised sympathy for the heroic struggle of the rebels and deep sadness caused by the defeat of the revolution.

Readers highly appreciated the ideological and artistic merits of “The North Star”. The first book of the almanac was published in a circulation of 600 copies and was immediately sold out. The second book was printed in a circulation of 1,500 copies, it sold out within three weeks and brought unexpected income to the publishers.
Therefore, Bestuzhev and Ryleev were already able to give a monetary reward to the participants in the third book. In the history of Russian journalism, this was the first case of payment for author's work.

After the third book of The Polar Star was published, Ryleev and Bestuzhev began preparing the fourth. But being busy with the affairs of the Northern Society and service did not allow them to compile the almanac in full in a timely manner. Then they decided to print the existing material in a small book called
"Star".

However, “Zvezdochka” did not see the light of day: part of the circulation, printed by December 14, 1825, after the events on Senate Square, was transferred to the investigative commission along with other papers of Ryleev and Bestuzhev.

According to Herzen’s figurative expression, the “Polar Star” disappeared behind the clouds of Nicholas’s reign.” Continuing the tradition of the Decembrists' almanac,
Herzen in 1855 In the Free Russian Printing House in London, he began printing his almanac “The Polar Star”, on the cover of which there was an image of a bas-relief with the profiles of five executed Decembrists. Herzen chose this name, in his words, “to show the continuity of tradition, continuity of labor, internal connection and blood relationship” with the Decembrists.

He spoke very positively about Bestuzhev and Ryleev’s “Polar Star”
Belinsky; he constantly called it a “famous, famous” almanac (IX,
684; X, 283), indicated exceptional success among readers (IV, 120).

“The Polar Star” by Bestuzhev and Ryleev was the ancestor of a large number of almanacs of the 1820–1830s. According to Belinsky’s fair remark,
“The success of the Polar Star created an almanac period in our literature that lasted more than ten years” (IV, 120).

There were two almanacs closest in direction to the “Polar Star”:
“Mnemosyne”, published in Moscow, and “Russian Antiquity” - in St. Petersburg.

"Mnemosyne"

“Mnemosyne” was created in 1824 as a three-month collection, but its last book was late and was published the following year. “Mnemosyne” only in name and periodicity resembled an almanac. In reality, it was a real magazine both in composition and in the nature of the materials. “Mnemosyne” had departments: “Philosophy”, “Military History”,
“Exquisite prose”, “Poems”, “Travel”, “Criticism and anti-criticism”,
"Mixture". Not only contemporaries felt this originality of “Mnemosyne”:
Belinsky, for example, called it an “almanac magazine” or simply
"magazine".

The initiative to publish “Mnemosyne” belonged to K.V. Kuchelbecker, who initially intended to publish it independently, but then, on the advice of friends, he attracted V.F. Odoevsky, who had great literary connections, as a co-publisher.

Kuchelbecker joined the Northern Society shortly before the uprising, but his contemporaries knew his free-thinking from his appearances in magazines. It was also known that, while traveling around Europe as secretary of nobleman A.
L. Naryshkin, Kuchelbecker gave lectures in Paris on Russian literature, introducing listeners to the freedom-loving works of modern authors.
The political emphasis of these lectures alarmed the Russian ambassador in Paris, and he sent Kuchelbecker to Russia. Returning to St. Petersburg as a disgraced poet, Kuchelbecker was soon sent to serve in the general's office
Ermolov to Tiflis, where he became friends with Griboyedov. In the autumn of 1823 Griboyedov and
Kuchelbecker came to Moscow and soon began to collaborate together in
"Mnemosyne."

Odoevsky was not a member of secret societies, but knew about their existence and was friends with many Decembrists. Showed great sympathy for the abstract
“philosophy” and mystical idealism, a romantic writer (“Russian Hoffmann”, as he was called), Odoevsky sometimes critically depicted in his philosophical and fantastic stories secular society, which he assessed positively
Belinsky (I, 274; IV, 344; VIII, 300).

The scientific department was headed by Odoevsky. He wrote articles and essays on issues of philosophy - in the spirit of Schelling's philosophical idealism, and on issues of aesthetics - in the spirit of German romanticism, as well as satirical articles - feuilletons. Kuchelbecker was at the head of the artistic and critical departments and was the most active employee of Mnemosyne: in four books of the almanac he published more than twenty of his works in a variety of genres - poems, letters about travel in Germany and France, a story
“Ado”, poems “Svyatopolk the Accursed” and “The Death of Byron”, excerpts from the tragedy
"Argives", critical and polemical articles, etc.

The first book of Mnemosynes opened with a program poem
Griboyedov "David" it defended the idea of ​​heroic deeds and justified the fight against the tyrant. Pushkin gave three poems in the almanac:
“Evening”, “My Demon”, “To the Sea”. In “Evening” he calls freedom his idol, and in the poem “To the Sea” he paints the image of a freedom-loving poet
Byron. Poems by Vyazemsky, Baratynsky, Raich and others were also published, but the leading role in the poetry department undoubtedly belonged to Kuchelbecker,
Griboyedov and Pushkin.

In the “Philosophy” department, Odoevsky’s articles stood out (“Aphorisms from various writers on modern German philosophy,” an excerpt from the “Dictionary of the History of Philosophy”) and the discussion of Moscow University professor M. G. Pavlov “On methods of studying nature,” in which the advantage of “speculative” method before “empirical” one.
Pavlov's work made a strong impression on his contemporaries; people turned to her in subsequent decades; Belinsky knew her well (II, 463).

But the central place in Mnemosyne was rightfully occupied by the article
Kuchelbecker “On the direction of our poetry, especially lyrical, in the last decade,” published in the second book of the almanac. It was a militant performance in which the main provisions of the literary and aesthetic program of the Decembrists were defended: the fight against imitation, the demand for original literature, saturated with high civic pathos, sharp criticism of the elegiac romanticism of the Karamzin sense, the work of Zhukovsky and the poets of his school.

Kuchelbecker notes that during last decade The most widespread genre in Russian poetry is the elegy, where feelings of sadness, melancholy, and despondency are sung. Time requires courageous strength from poetry, and it is not found in “cloudy, non-defining, effeminate, colorless works.”

Speaking rather strictly about Pushkin’s elegies, Kuchelbecker contrasts them with his romantic poems. He fought for Pushkin as a critic of the Decembrist camp and wanted to direct the poet’s work into the mainstream of civil romanticism.

According to Kuchelbecker, high social ideas can only be expressed in such genres as civil ode, heroic poem, tragedy, national patriotic thought, satire and comedy.

Among the many who attacked Küchelbecker for his bold article was
Bulgarin. Kuchelbecker published his answer to Bulgarin (“Conversation with F.V. Bulgarin”) in the third book of “Mnemosynes”; here he further argued and developed the provisions of his article. Odoevsky immediately took the side of Kuchelbecker and, following his “Conversation,” placed “Addition to the previous Conversation,” also directed against Bulgarin; In addition, in the third book of Mnemosyne, Odoevsky included the feuilleton “Consequences of a satirical article” and ridiculed those poets (“parnasniks”) who “do not take their eyes off the foggy distance.”

One of the first to appear in Mnemosyne positive feedback about comedy
Griboyedov, polemically directed against reactionary criticism. In the article
“A Few Words About Mnemosyne by the Publishers Themselves” argued that Woe from Wit is “a credit to our times” and deserves “the respect of all its readers, except a few fastidious talkers.”

“Mnemosyne” was a great success among readers: the first book was published in a circulation of 600 copies, the second – 1200 copies. This was the second one after
“Polar Star”, the case when the almanac was printed in such a large circulation.

Belinsky viewed Mnemosyne as “a magazine whose subject was art and knowledge” (II, 463). The great critic pointed out the great role
"Mnemosynes" in the spread of serious theoretical knowledge and the latest scientific ideas, in enriching the Russian language with scientific terminology.

"Russian Antiquity"

Historical and at the same time literary almanac “Russian Antiquity.
A pocket book for lovers of Russian things” was published by the Decembrist A.O. Kornilovich; Only one book was published - in 1825.
Kornilovich is a historian and historical fiction writer who seriously studied the era
Peter I, a member of the Free Society of Lovers of Russian Literature, was an employee of Polar Star and other publications.

The book “Russian Antiquity” consisted of five articles by Kornilovich, united under the general title “Morals of the Russians under Peter the Great,” and four articles by the historian and ethnographer V.D. Sukhorukov, entitled “Hostel Don Cossacks in the 17th and 18th centuries." In the works of Kornilovich, the activities of Peter I as an enlightened monarch-reformer were very highly valued, and a hidden contrast between Peter I and Alexander I, characteristic of the Decembrists, was made. Pushkin, working on “Arap Peter
The Great,” turned to Kornilovitch’s articles, in particular to the article “On the first balls in Russia.”

Sukhorukov collected materials on the history of the Don Army. In his works he emphasized heroism, courage, natural love of freedom Don Cossacks, i.e. those civic virtues that Ryleev glorified in
"thoughts" and poems. The articles of Kornilovich and Sukhorukov, notable for their historical accuracy, were works of art in the full sense of the word.

“Russian Antiquity” was sympathetically received by readers and was soon published in a second edition.

Decembrist in everyday life.

People's behavior is always diverse. This should not be forgotten.
Beautiful abstractions such as “romantic behavior”, “psychological type of a Russian young nobleman of the 19th century.” etc. will always belong to constructions of a very high degree of abstraction.

Was there an everyday behavior of the Decembrist that distinguished him not only from the reactionaries and “extinguishers”, but also from the mass of liberal and educated nobles of his day? Studying materials from that era allows us to answer this question positively.

We should not forget that each person in his behavior implements not just one program of action, but constantly makes a choice, updating one strategy from an extensive set of possibilities. Each individual Decembrist in real everyday behavior could behave like a nobleman, an officer (guardsman, hussar, staff theorist), aristocrat, man, Russian, European, etc.

However, there was some special behavior, a special type of speech, action, reaction, inherent specifically to a member of a secret society.

The Decembrists were, first of all, people of action, which was reflected in their socio-political orientation on practical change political existence of Russia, and the personal experience of most of them as military officers who valued courage, energy, enterprise, firmness, firmness, perseverance no less than the ability to draw up a policy document or conduct a theoretical debate.

Contemporaries highlighted not only the “talkativeness” of the Decembrists - they also emphasized the harshness and directness of their judgments, the peremptory nature of their sentences, and the “indecent”, from the point of view of secular norms, tendency to call a spade a spade, avoiding the euphemistic conventions of secular formulations.

Thus, language behavior Decembrist was sharply specific.
The consciousness of the Decembrists was characterized by a sharp polarization of moral and political assessments: any action found itself in the field of “rudeness”,
“meanness”, “tyranny” or “liberalism”, “enlightenment”, “heroism”.
There were no neutral or insignificant actions; the possibility of their existence was not implied. Actions that were outside of verbal designation, on the one hand, and designated euphemistically and metaphorically, on the other, receive unambiguous verbal labels, the set of which is small and coincides with the ethical and political lexicon of Decembrism.

The everyday behavior of the Decembrist in a number of cases allowed them to distinguish
“one’s own” from “extinguisher” is characteristic of the noble culture, which created an extremely complex and branched system of signs of behavior. Based on everyday behavior candidates for the society were selected, and knighthood specific to the Decembrists arose.

The hierarchy of significant elements of behavior consists of the sequence: gesture – action – behavioral text. Thus, each text of behavior at the level of actions corresponds to a specific program of behavior at the level of intentions.

Just as the gesture and deed of a noble revolutionary received meaning for him and those around him, since they had a word as their meaning, any chain of actions became a text (acquired meaning) if it could be clarified by connection with a certain literary plot, marked with the stamp of romanticism, since they were used typical literary situations like “the farewell of Hector and Andromache”, “the oath of the Horatii” or names that suggested plots.

The real behavior of a person in the Decembrist circle appears in the form of some encrypted text, and the literary plot is like a code that allows one to penetrate into the hidden meaning.

The powerful influence of words on behavior and sign systems on everyday life is especially clearly manifested in those aspects of everyday life that, by their nature, are most distant from social semiosis. One of these areas is recreation, which is invariably focused on spontaneity, naturalness, and unfamiliarity. Thus, in urban civilizations, recreation necessarily includes a trip “to the bosom of nature.”

A holiday in the life of the nobility of the 19th century. was quite a complex and heterogeneous phenomenon. It was connected both with the peasant calendar ritual and with the fact that the post-Petrine noble culture did not yet suffer from the rigid ritualization of ordinary, non-festive life.

However, the brutal regime among military youth led to the emergence special type riotous behavior, perceived as a variant of freethinking. Here recreation took the form of revelry or orgies.

A continuation of this was the establishment of a connection between revelry and theoretical and ideological ideas. This entailed the transformation of revelry and rioting into a type of socially significant behavior and its ritualization, sometimes bringing a friendly drinking session closer to a travesty liturgy or a parody meeting of a Masonic lodge.

From the area of ​​routine behavior, riotous behavior was transferred to the area of ​​symbolic activity. Routine behavior differs in that the individual receives it from society, the era or his psychophysiological constitution as something that has no alternative. Sign behavior is always the result of choice and includes the free activity of the subject of behavior, his choice of the language of his attitude to society.

Speech behavior was characterized by a violation of the Karamzin cult
"decency". This was manifested in the mixing of the language of high political and philosophical thought, refined poetic imagery with vulgar vocabulary.
This created a special, sharply familiar style. This language, rich in unexpected combinations and stylistic juxtapositions, became a kind of password by which one recognized “one of our own.” The presence of a language password, a sharply expressed circle jargon, is a characteristic feature of both the “Green Lamp” and “Arzamas”.

Speech behavior had to correspond to everyday behavior, based on the same mixture. Familiarity, elevated to a cult, led to a kind of ritualization of everyday life. Only this was an “inside out” ritualization, reminiscent of the clownish rituals of a carnival.

Everyday behavior, no less sharply than formal entry into a secret society, fenced off the noble revolutionary not only from the people of the “past century”, but also from a wide range of fronders, freethinkers and
"liberalists". Such emphasis special behavior, contrary to the idea of ​​conspiracy, did not bother the young conspirators.

The ideal of “feasts” was demonstratively contrasted with Ryleev’s “Russian breakfasts”, Spartan in spirit and emphatically Russian in the composition of the dishes.
“to which many writers and members of our community usually gathered
Society."

The young man, dividing his time between balls and friendly drinking sessions, was contrasted with the anchorite who spent time in the office. Desk studies even captivated military youth, who were more reminiscent of young scientists than army freemen.

The Decembrist was highly characterized by the cult of brotherhood based on the unity of spiritual ideals and the exaltation of friendship. Everyday, family, and human connections permeated the thickness of political organizations. In none of the political movements of Russia is there such a number of family ties: the Bestuzhev brothers, the Vadkovsky brothers, the Bodisko brothers, the Borisov brothers, the Kuchelbecker brothers, intertwining in the Muravyov nest -
Lunins, around the Raevskys’ house.

The whole appearance of the Decembrist was inseparable from the feeling self-esteem, based on an exceptionally developed sense of honor and on the belief of each of the participants in the movement that he is great man. Therefore, every act was considered as having significance, worthy of the memory of descendants, the attention of historians, and having the highest meaning. Hence the well-known picturesqueness and theatricality of everyday behavior and the exceptionally high demands on the norms of everyday behavior.

The Decembrists built from the unconscious elements of everyday behavior of the Russian nobleman at the turn of the 18th and 19th centuries. a conscious system of ideologically significant everyday behavior, completed as a text and imbued with a higher meaning.

Despite the relationship between the everyday behavior of the Decembrists and the principles of the romantic worldview, the high significance of their everyday behavior did not turn into stiltedness and forced declamation, but, on the contrary, was strikingly combined with simplicity and sincerity.

The Decembrists introduced unity into human behavior, but not by rehabilitating life’s prose, but by passing life through the filters of heroic texts, and simply abolished what was not subject to inclusion on the tablets of history. Prosaic responsibility to superiors was replaced by responsibility to history, and the fear of death was replaced by the poetry of honor and freedom. The transfer of freedom from the realm of ideas and theories into “breath” - into life - this is the essence and purpose of the Decembrist’s everyday behavior.

References:

1. “Arzamas” and Arzamas protocols. L., 1933.

2. Memoirs of the Bestuzhevs. M., 1951.

3. Herzen A.I. Collection. op. in 30 volumes, vol. 12. M., 1957.

4. Girchenko I.V. Failed attempt to publish the “Military Journal” //

Decembrists in Moscow. Collection of articles. M., 1961.

6. Diaries and letters of N. I. Turgenev, vol. 3. M., 1921.

7. Esin B.I. History of Russian journalism of the 19th century. M., 2000.

8. Zapadov A.V. History of Russian journalism in the 18th – 19th centuries. M., 1973.

9. Lotman Yu.M. Decembrist in everyday life. // At school poetic word: Pushkin, Lermontov, Gogol. M., 1988.
10. Collection of materials for the study of the history of Russian journalism, issue 1.M.,

1952.
11. Sobolev V. Periodical press in Russia at the beginning of the 19th century and the journalism of the Decembrists. M., 1952.

Magazines and almanacs:

Bulletin of Europe, 1816, No. 10.

Nevsky Spectator, 1821, No. 3.

Son of the Fatherland, 1816, No. 4,

1818, №38, № 42,

1825, № 20, №22.

Russian antiquity, 1889, No. 2.

Russian archive, 1875, No. 12.

————————
"Arzamas" and Arzamas protocols. L., 1933, p. 19.

There, p. 239–242.
Information about the society and the magazine is contained in the letters and diaries of N.I.
Turgenev. See: Diaries and letters of N.I. Turgenev, vol. 3. Pg. 1921, p.
373–382; Decembrist N.I. Turgenev. Letters to brother S. M. Turgenev. M.–L.,
1936, p. 273–282. In abbreviation, these documents are reprinted on the “Collection of materials for the study of the history of Russian journalism,” vol. 1. M., 1952, p.
177–179.

"Russian Archive", 1875, No. 12, p. 427.

Girchenko I.V. A failed attempt to publish the “Military Journal” - In the book:
Decembrists in Moscow. Collection of articles. M., 1961, p. 258–264.

F. Glinka “Discussion on the need to have a history of the Patriotic War of 1812” // “Son of the Fatherland”, 1816, No. 4

“Bulletin of Europe”, 1816, No. 10, p. 142.

See: Sobolev V. Periodical press in Russia at the beginning of the 19th century and the journalism of the Decembrists. M., 1952, p. 13.

“Son of the Fatherland”, 1823, No. 4, p. 174, 175.
After the publication of “Zvezdochka,” Ryleev and Bestuzhev intended to apply for the right to publish the magazine; This is evidenced by Vyazemsky’s letter to
Bestuzhev dated November 18, 1825: “...I was told that you were turning your almanac into a magazine, and I was glad” (“Russian Antiquity”, 1889, No. 2, p.
321).

Herzen A.I. Collection. op. in 30 volumes, vol. 12. M., 1957, p. 265. Further, Herzen’s statements are quoted from this edition, indicating the volume and page in the text.

Mnemosyne - goddess of memory Greek mythology, mother of nine muses, patroness of the arts and sciences. In Russia, it was common to name almanacs after mythological characters.

According to the article by Lotman Yu.M. Decembrist in everyday life. // At the school of poetic words: Pushkin, Lermontov, Gogol. M., 1988. S. 158 – 205.

Memoirs of the Bestuzhevs. M., 1951. p. 53.

K. Kolman "Revolt of the Decembrists"

The Decembrists were “children of 1812”, that’s what they called themselves.

The war with Napoleon awakened a sense of national identity in the Russian people, and in particular in the noble class. What they saw in Western Europe, as well as the ideas of the Enlightenment, clearly outlined for them the path that, in their opinion, could save Russia from the heavy oppression of serfdom. During the war, they saw their people in a completely different capacity: patriots, defenders of the Fatherland. They could compare the life of peasants in Russia and in Western Europe and conclude that the Russian people deserve a better fate.

Victory in the war put before thinking people The question is how should the victorious people continue to live: should they still languish under the yoke of serfdom or should they be helped to throw off this yoke?

Thus, an understanding gradually developed of the need to fight serfdom and autocracy, which did not seek to change the lot of the peasants. The Decembrist movement was not some outstanding phenomenon; it took place in the general mainstream of the world revolutionary movement. P. Pestel also wrote about this in his testimony: “The present century is marked by revolutionary thoughts. From one end of Europe to the other one can see the same thing, from Portugal to Russia, without excluding a single state, even England and Turkey, these two opposites. All of America presents the same spectacle. The spirit of transformation makes, so to speak, minds bubble everywhere... These are the reasons, I believe, that gave rise to revolutionary thoughts and rules and rooted them in the minds.”

Early secret societies

The early secret societies were the forerunners of the Southern and Northern societies. The Salvation Union was organized in February 1816 in St. Petersburg. The very name of the society suggests that its participants set salvation as their goal. Saving who or what? According to society participants, Russia had to be saved from falling into the abyss on the edge of which it stood. The main ideologist and creator of the society was Colonel of the General Staff Alexander Nikolaevich Muravyov, he was 23 years old at that time.

F. Tulov "Alexander Nikolaevich Muravyov"

Salvation Union

It was a small, closed group of like-minded people, numbering only 10-12 people. At the end of its existence it grew to 30 people. The main members of the Union of Salvation were the prince, Art. General Staff officer S.P. Trubetskoy; Matvey and Sergey Muravyov-Apostles; Second Lieutenant of the General Staff Nikita Muravyov; I.D. Yakushkin, second lieutenant of the Semenovsky regiment; M.N. Novikov, nephew of the famous educator of the 18th century, and Pavel Ivanovich Pestel.

The main goals of their struggle:

• abolition of serfdom;
• elimination of autocracy;
• introduction of the constitution;
• establishment of representative government.

The goals were clear. But the means and ways to achieve this are vague.

But since the ideas of the Decembrists were borrowed from the Enlightenment, the means and methods were formed precisely from these sources and they did not consist in seizing power, but in nurturing progressive social views. And when these views take possession of the masses, these masses themselves will sweep away the government.

Welfare Union

But time passed, new ideas and attitudes appeared, in accordance with this, in 1818 another society was formed - the Union of Welfare (on the basis of the Union of Salvation). Its organizational structure was more complex, and its scope of action was much wider: education, army, bureaucracy, court, press, etc. In many ways, the goals of the Welfare Union coincided with government policy Russia, therefore the organization was not completely mothballed.

Main goals of the organization:

• abolition of serfdom;
• elimination of autocracy;
• introduction of free and lawful government.

But the charter of the Union of Welfare consisted of two parts: the main one and the “secret” one, which was drawn up later.

His program:

• abolition of slavery;
• equality of citizens before the law;
• transparency in government affairs;
• publicity of legal proceedings;
• destruction of the wine monopoly;
• destruction of military settlements;
• improving the lot of defenders of the Fatherland, establishing a limit for their service, reduced from 25 years;
• improving the lot of clergy members;
• in peacetime, a reduction in the size of the army.

In January 1820, at a meeting in St. Petersburg, the question was raised: “Which government is better - constitutional-monarchical or republican?” Everyone unanimously chose republican rule.
For the first time in the history of the Russian revolutionary movement, the Welfare Union decided to fight for a republican form of government in Russia. The change in program also entailed tactical changes.

The Moscow Congress convened in 1820 decided to purge the movement of the wavering part, as well as the radical one. The Pestel Society was declared dissolved.

New secret societies

Southern Society of Decembrists

On the basis of the “Union of Welfare”, two revolutionary organizations were formed in 1821: the Southern Society in Kyiv and the Northern Society in St. Petersburg. The more revolutionary of them, Southern, was headed by P. Pestel. The Tulchin government of the Union of Welfare resumed a secret society called “Southern Society”. Its structure was similar to that of the Union of Salvation: it consisted exclusively of officers and strict discipline. It was supposed to establish a republican system through regicide and a military coup. The society included three councils: Tulchinskaya (headed by P. Pestel and A. Yushnevsky), Vasilkovskaya (headed by S. Muravyov-Apostol) and Kamenskaya (under the leadership of V. Davydov and S. Volkonsky).

Political program of Southern society

"Russian Truth" P.I. Pestel

P. Pestel, a supporter of revolutionary actions, assumed that during the revolution a dictatorship of a temporary supreme rule would be required. Therefore, he drew up a project with a very long title “Russian Truth, or the Protected State Charter of the Great Russian People, serving as a covenant for improvement State system Russia and containing the right order both for the people and for the Provisional Supreme Government,” or “Russian Truth” for short (by analogy with the legislative document Kievan Rus). In fact, it was a constitutional project. It had 10 chapters:

— about land space;

- about the tribes inhabiting Russia;

- about the classes found in Russia;

- about the people in relation to the political state being prepared for them;

— about the structure and formation of the supreme power;

— about the structure and formation of local authorities;

— about the security structure in the state;

— about the government;

- an order for the compilation of a state code of laws.

With the abolition of serfdom, Pestel provided for the liberation of peasants with land. Moreover, he proposed dividing all the land in the volost into two parts: that which is public property cannot be sold. The second part is private property and can be sold.

But, despite the fact that Pestel advocated the complete abolition of serfdom, he did not propose to give all the land to the peasants; landownership was partially preserved.

A staunch opponent of autocracy, he considered it necessary to physically destroy the entire reigning house.

When a republic is proclaimed, all classes must be destroyed, no class should differ from another in any way social privileges, the nobility was destroyed, all people should be equal citizens. Everyone was supposed to be equal before the law, everyone could participate in government affairs.

According to Pestel's constitution, adulthood was reached at the age of 20. Pestel was a supporter of a federal structure with strong centralized power. The republic was to be divided into provinces or regions, regions into districts, districts into volosts. Chapters are only elective. Higher legislative body- People's Assembly, which should be elected for 5 years. No one had the right to dissolve the veche. The veche was supposed to be unicameral. Executive body- State Duma.

To control the exact implementation of the constitution, Pestel assumed power vigilant.

The Constitution proclaimed the inviolable right of property, freedom of occupation, printing and religion.

National question: other nationalities did not have the right to secede from the Russian state, they had to merge and exist as a single Russian people.

This was the most radical constitutional project that existed at that time.

But Russia was not yet ready to live according to Pestel’s project, especially in the matter of the liquidation of estates.

Northern society

P. Sokolov "Nikita Muravyov"

It was formed in the spring of 1821. At first it consisted of 2 groups: a more radical one under the leadership of Nikita Muravyov and a group under the leadership of Nikolai Turgenev, then they united, although the radical wing, which included K. F. Ryleev, A. A. Bestuzhev, E. P. Obolensky, I. AND. Pushchin, shared the provisions of “Russian Truth” by P. I. Pestel. The society consisted of councils: several councils in St. Petersburg (in the guards regiments) and one in Moscow.

The society was headed by the Supreme Duma. N. Muravyov’s deputies were Princes Trubetskoy and Obolensky, then, in connection with Trubetskoy’s departure to Tver, Kondraty Ryleev. I. Pushchin played a significant role in society.

Political program of the Nordic society

N. Muravyov created his own constitution. He abandoned his republican views and switched to the position of a constitutional monarchy.

He proposed to solve the peasant question in the following way: free them from serfdom, but leave the lands of the landowners for the landowners. The peasants were to receive estate plots and two tithes per yard.

Only the owner of the land had the right to participate in political life (to vote and be elected). Those who did not have real estate or movable property, like women, were deprived voting rights. The nomads also lost it.

According to the constitution of Nikita Muravyov, anyone who arrived on Russian soil ceased to be a slave (serf).

Military settlements had to be destroyed, appanage lands (those whose income went to the maintenance of the reigning house) were confiscated and transferred to the peasants.

All class titles were abolished and replaced with the title citizen. The concept “Russian” had meaning only in relation to Russian citizenship, and not national.

The Constitution of N. Muravyov proclaimed freedoms: movement, occupation, speech, press, religion.

The class court was abolished and a common jury was introduced for all citizens.

The emperor was supposed to represent the executive branch, he was supposed to be the commander-in-chief, but he did not have the right to start or cancel wars.

Muravyov saw Russia as a federal state, which was to be divided into federal units (powers), there should have been 15 of them, each with its own capital. And Muravyov saw Nizhny Novgorod, the center of the country, as the capital of the federation.

The supreme legislative body is the People's Assembly. It consisted of 2 chambers: the Supreme and the House of People's Representatives.

The Supreme Duma was supposed to be the legislative body, including the trial of ministers and all dignitaries in the event of their accusation. She also participated, together with the emperor, in the conclusion of peace, in the appointment of commanders-in-chief, and the supreme guardian (prosecutor general).

Each power also had a bicameral system: the Chamber of Electors and the State Duma. Legislative power in the state belonged to the legislative assembly.

The Constitution of N. Muravyov, if it had been introduced, would have broken all the foundations of the old system, it would certainly have met with resistance, so he provided for the use of weapons.

The question of the unification of Southern and Northern societies

The need for this was understood by members of both societies. But it was not easy for them to come to a common opinion. Each society had its own doubts about certain constitutional issues. In addition, even the very personality of P. Pestel raised doubts among members of the Northern society. K. Ryleev even found that Pestel was “a dangerous man for Russia.” In the spring of 1824, Pestel himself came to the members of the Northern Society with a proposal to accept the “Russian Truth”. There were passionate debates at the meeting, but at the same time, this visit pushed the Northern Society to more decisive action. They discussed the issue of preparing a performance in Bila Tserkva, where the royal review was planned in 1825. But the performance could only be joint: the Northern and Southern societies. Everyone agreed that it was necessary to develop a common program: the idea of ​​a republic (instead of a constitutional monarchy) and Constituent Assembly(instead of the dictatorship of the Provisional Revolutionary Government) were more acceptable to the majority. These issues should finally be resolved by the 1826 congress.

But events began to develop according to an unforeseen plan: in November 1825, Emperor Alexander I suddenly died. The heir to the throne was Alexander’s brother Constantine, who had renounced rule earlier, but his decision was not made public, and on November 27 the population swore allegiance to Constantine. However, he did not accept the throne, but also did not formally renounce the imperial throne. Nicholas did not wait for his brother to formally abdicate and declared himself emperor. The re-oath was to take place on December 14, 1825.

A situation of interregnum arose, and the Decembrists decided to start an uprising - even earlier, when creating the first organization, they decided to act at the time of the change of emperors. This moment has now arrived, although it was unexpected and premature.

The history of Russia in the 19th century is incredibly rich in various events. However, the Decembrist uprising on Senate Square ranks among them completely special place. After all, if the goal of all previous successful and unsuccessful attempts to seize power in the country was to replace one autocrat with another, then this time it was about a change in the social system and the transition to a republican method of governing the state. The initiators of the December Uprising were members of the “Southern” and “Northern” secret societies, led by N. Muravyov, S. Trubetskoy and P. Pestel.

Background

It is usually customary to begin the story of the Decembrist Uprising with the founding of the “Union of Salvation” in St. Petersburg, a secret society that declared its goal to liberate the peasants and carry out fundamental reforms in the sphere of government. This organization lasted only one year, and was dissolved due to differences in the views of the participants on the possibility of regicide. However, many of its participants continued their activities, now as part of the Union of Welfare. After the conspirators learned that the authorities were going to introduce their spies into the ranks of the rebels, the “Northern” (in early 1822) and “Southern” (in 1821) secret societies were formed instead. The first of them operated in the Northern capital, and the second in Kyiv.

Southern Society

Despite the somewhat provincial status of the organization of conspirators operating in Ukraine, its members were much more radical than the “northerners.” First of all, this was due to the fact that the “Southern Society” consisted exclusively of officers, most of whom had experience participating in battles, and its members sought to change political structure country through regicide and military coup. The turning point in his activities came in 1823. It was then that a congress took place in Kyiv, which adopted the program document of the “Southern Society” authored by Pavel Pestel, called “Russian Truth”. This work, along with the draft constitution of N. Muravyov, on which members of the “Northern Society” relied, played a large role in the formation of progressive views among the Russian aristocracy of the 19th century, which, by the way, led to the abolition of serfdom.

Policy document

Pestel's "Russian Truth" was presented to the members of the "Southern Society" in 1823. However, he began working on it back in 1819. A total of 5 chapters were written relating to land, class and national issues. Pestel proposed renaming Nizhny Novgorod Vladimir and moving there the capital of the new Russian unified state. In addition, the Russian Pravda raised the issue of immediate abolition. The program of the “Southern Society” of the Decembrists also provided for:

• equality before the law of every citizen;
• the right to elect a "People's Assembly" for all men over twenty years of age;
• freedom of speech, religion, occupation, assembly, movement and press;
• inviolability of home and person;
• equality before justice.

Goals

As has already been said, "Southern Society" was more radical than "Northern" society. His main goal was:

• the liquidation of the autocracy, including the physical destruction of all representatives of the reigning house of Romanov;
• abolition of serfdom, but without granting land to the ownership of peasants;
• introduction of the constitution;
• destruction of class differences;
• establishment of representative government.

P. Pestel: a short biographical sketch

So who was at the helm of the “Southern Society” and created one of the most significant documents concerning the development of Russia, based on the principles of the Age of Enlightenment? This man was Pavel Ivanovich Pestel, who was born in 1793 in Moscow, into a German family that professed Lutheranism. At the age of 12, the boy was sent to Dresden, where he studied at one of the closed educational institutions. Pavel Pestel received further education in the Corps of Pages, and upon graduation young man assigned to the Lithuanian regiment. The military career of the future conspirator was more than successful. In particular, Pestel showed miracles of courage during the Battle of Borodino and in other battles of the Patriotic War of 1812, and was awarded many Russian and allied awards.

Pavel Pestel

After the victory over Napoleon, political organizations arose among the Russian officers that set themselves the goal of improving the situation of the peasants and limiting or even destroying the autocracy. One of these military men was Pavel Pestel, who became a member of the Union of Salvation, later the Union of Welfare, and finally, in 1821, headed the Southern Secret Society. The main miscalculation that Pavel Ivanovich Pestel made was his proposal that in the event of the victory of the uprising, the country would be ruled by the Provisional Government for an unlimited time. This idea caused concern among members of the Northern Society, since among the rebels there were many who saw in his actions both the desire to become a dictator and Napoleonic ambitions. That is why the “northerners” were in no hurry to unite with the “southerners,” which ultimately weakened their common potential. Judging by the surviving documents, during 1824 Pestel, considering himself misunderstood by his comrades, experienced severe depression and even lost interest in the activities of the “Southern Society” for some time.

"Southern Society": participants

In addition to P. Pestel, members of a secret society organized among officers military units, stationed on the territory of modern Ukraine, there were several dozen famous military men of that time. In particular, among the leaders of the “southerners” S. Muravyov-Apostol, M. Bestuzhev-Ryumin, V. Davydov and the hero of the year S. Volkonsky enjoyed special authority. A Directory was elected to manage the organization, which, in addition to Pestel, also included Quartermaster General A.P. Yushnevsky.

Actions of the authorities to expose the activities of secret societies

In history, as in the case of any other conspiratorial societies, there were traitors and provocateurs. In particular, the most fatal mistake was made by Pestel himself, who introduced his subordinate, Captain Arkady Mayboroda, into the secret “Southern Society”. The latter did not have any education, as evidenced by numerous grammatical errors, which are present in the denunciation he wrote against Pestel, and was dishonest. In the fall of 1825, Mayboroda committed a large embezzlement of soldiers' money. Fearing the consequences, he informed the authorities about the impending rebellion. Even earlier, a denunciation of the conspirators was made by non-commissioned officer Sherwood, who was even summoned to Alexander the First to testify and sent to his place of service, the Third Bug Regiment, so that he could continue to report on the goals and intentions of the rebels.

Preparing for the uprising

Back in the fall of 1825, at a meeting with General S. Volkonsky, Pestel, the goals of the “Southern Society” for the coming months were determined, the main of which was the preparation of an uprising scheduled for January 1, 1826. The fact is that on this day the Vyatka regiment led by him was supposed to serve as a guard at the headquarters of the 2nd Army in Tulchin. The conspirators developed a forced march route to St. Petersburg and stockpiled the necessary food. It was assumed that they would arrest the commander and chief of staff of the army and move to St. Petersburg, where they would be supported by army units led by officers who were members of the Northern Society.

Consequences of the Decembrist uprising for members of the "Southern Society"

Few people know that Pavel Ivanovich Pestel was arrested even before the events on Senate Square, and more specifically, on December 13, 1825, as a result of Mayboroda’s denunciation. Later, 37 members of the “Southern Society” were detained and brought to trial, as well as 61 members of the “Northern Society” and 26 people related to the “South Slavs Society”. Many of them were sentenced to various types death penalty, however, they were then pardoned, with the exception of five: Pestel, Ryleev, Bestuzhev-Ryumin, Kakhovsky and Muravyov-Apostol.

Uprising of the Chernigov Regiment

After the events on Senate Square became known, and many of the leaders of the “Southern Society” were arrested, their comrades who remained at large decided to take retaliatory measures. In particular, on December 29, officers of the Chernigov regiment Kuzmin, Sukhinov, Soloviev and Shchepillo attacked their regimental commanders and freed Muravyov-Apostol, who was under lock and key in the village of Trilesy. The next day, the rebels captured the city of Vasilkov and Motovilovka, where they read out the “Orthodox Catechism”, in which, appealing to the religious feelings of the soldiers, they tried to explain to them that statements about divinity royal power- a fiction, and a Russian person should submit only to the will of the Lord, and not the autocrat.

A few days later, a clash took place between the rebels and government troops near the village of Ustimovka. Moreover, S. Muravyov-Apostol forbade the soldiers to shoot, hoping that the commanders who found themselves on the other side of the barricades would do the same. As a result of the massacre, he himself was wounded, his brother shot himself, and 6 officers and 895 soldiers were arrested. Thus, the “Southern Society” ceased to exist, and its members were either physically destroyed, or demoted and exiled to hard labor or to the troops fighting in the Caucasus.

Despite the fact that the Decembrist uprising was not successful, it pointed out to the Russian autocrats the need for reforms, which, however, reactionary rule Nicholas II were not carried out. At the same time, the program of the “Southern Society” and Muravyov’s “Constitution” gave impetus to the development of plans for the transformation of Russia by revolutionary organizations, which, in principle, led to the revolution of 1917.

One of the most important events XIX century there was a Decembrist uprising. The emergence of the Decembrist movement was due to the entire course of historical development Russia. The powerless situation of the masses and its comparison with what was seen in Western Europe became one of the main factors in the formation of the liberation ideology of the Decembrists.

In the 1810s, things began to happen in the first estate of Russia that were unthinkable under Catherine II or Paul I. People increasingly began to value each other not by rank, titles or capital, but by way of thinking and kinship of souls. Cards, wine, and dancing were replaced by books, magazines, chess, and debates on social and political issues.

The history of Decembrism begins in 1810-1811, when officer artels began to emerge in the guards regiments. There was still nothing political or oppositional to the government in them; they rather opposed the usual way of life and thinking

The Decembrists rightly called themselves “children of 1812.” Indeed, the wars with Napoleon not only gave impetus to the growth of self-awareness of society, not only made the nobles realize that they were defenders of the Fatherland, showed them the people in all their patriotic strength, but also allowed them to compare the conditions and orders of life in Russia and Europe, introduced the noble youth to the latest ideas century.

The ideology of Decembrism was the “top floor” of noble love of freedom, protest against bureaucracy in thoughts, feelings and actions. It was based on the philosophy of the Enlightenment. Liberalism and revolutionism were still closely intertwined in it.

Salvation Union

The Secret Society of Decembrists was born on February 9, 1816. in St. Petersburg. Its first name was the Union of Salvation. Russia had to be saved, it stood on the edge of the abyss

Welfare Union

In accordance with the new tactical guidelines, the revolutionaries in 1818 formed a new society - the Union of Welfare, which differed from the previous one in a more complex organizational structure, and was supposed to cover all spheres of the country's life - the army, bureaucracy, education, journalism, court.

"Northern" society

Working on the constitution in 1821 and subsequent years, Nikita Muravyov had already moved away from his previous republican views. At this time he was leaning towards the idea of ​​a constitutional monarchy. The class limitations of the nobility also affected the resolution of the issue of serfdom.

"Southern" Society of Decembrists

The Southern Society confirmed the republic's demand and emphasized that the secret society had not been destroyed, its activities continued. Pestel raised questions about regicide and the tactics of the military revolution, which were accepted unanimously.